Re: Dialer w/Cell Fone

["Jackcsg" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

<rabsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1112463507.466047.285660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 1. Yes, the dialer has line seizure. BTW, i've also seen connection
> problems between a controller and the CS.

Ever concidered monitoring your control panel over TCP/IP?
It offers line security, and speed of transmission, typically 40 to 70
mille-seconds.

> 2. I haven't been impressed with CS operators for the most part, and
> I've used some "name" CS in the past. And here, even if you want them
> to contact you first in the case of a fire alarm, they (by code) have
> to call the Fire Dept. first. Ever try to stop a fire truck?

I can vouche for your CS issues. CS operators do what the automation system
tells them.
My CS operators are trained a little differently. We haven't had a single
false alarm in 22 months, and only one dispatch to an actual fire in that
same time frame.

> 3. Cell fones unreliable??? I guess it depends on what service you use.
> You'd probably stop sleeping at night if you knew how much of the
> country's "defense" relied on cell fones.

That's an inside joke around here...You haven't been exposed to our RFI nut
from Belgium yet.

> 4. Calls from the house line are a priority no matter where I am or
> what I'm doing. they're answered immediately.

There is a higher degree of failure no matter what your priorities are.

> BTW, the insurance company has been and remains happy with this
> approach.
>
State Farm Insurance? Does your Life Insurance Company know these same
risks?
There's nothing wrong, that I see, with being responsible for yourself. Now
if you decide to start monitoring half of Baltimore County in the same
manner...then I'd have a problem, and so would you.